We really should start monitoring the subject lines folks.
> [mailto:owner-discuss@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Randy Bush
> Sent: Monday, June 28, 1999 1:44 PM
> To: Cthulhu's Little Helper
> Subject: Re: [discuss] Notes - Names Council Meeting, San
> Jose - 062599
>
> > In the meantime, back to groups A-C. Actually, could we
> discuss A-E?
> > They're all supposed to report in 3 weeks, aren't they?
>
> no. i suggest we focus on the content/issues as opposed to
> when someone
> says that they would like to have results. the
> meta-discussion only serves
> to delay actual consideration of content. and when that
> happens, my first
> question is who is benefitting. but that is an internal question, not
> something worth discussing publicly, we have sufficient
> recriminations to
> satisfy the most miserable of personalities.
I disagree when a failure to get consensus on some of the meta issues
(processes) can provide a failure at the detail level.
> [ purely personal opinion follows ]
>
> in wg a, the two issues that interest me personally are
> o should the wipo dispute resolution process be confined to
> cybersquatting
> / cyberpiracy, or should it be considerably expanded?
> o should there be a standard dispute resolution process
> throughout all
> registrars / registries?
>
> on the first point, i think we should do the minimal change to protect
> legitimate use. wipo proposes much new process and law that
> has not been
> well-tested or universally accepted. in the time since nsi put their
> dispute resolution policy in place, the courts have done much
> to advance
> protection against cybersquatting etc. so i ask what is the
> minimal change
> we can make in public policy to ensure prudent progress and
> operation of
> the net?
None, Nada, Zilch. It is not ICANN/DNSO place to make new law. Draconian
approach (not my fave) is to require pre-existing trademark
registration.
> on the second, i have heard only one argument in favor of
> uniform policy
> which i consider cogent. a low-ball anything-goes registrar
> would capture
> the sleaze/cybersquatter market and make it quite difficult to pursue
> sleaze, especially in a multi-national context. i am
> undecided, but might
> become more convinced if someone were to propose a *minimal*
> uniform policy
> to minimize this problem while not preventing market
> differentiation and
> experimentation in this area. and i am told that recent
> court cases have
> already made cybersquatting a less viable strategy. if so, is this
> sufficient? if not, what is the minimal thing we need to help here?
I think current law is sufficient. A minimal policy, under the law, is
FCFS and ALWAYS follow court-orders from competent jurisdiction. The
minimal acceptable additional requirement is to require proof of
trademark before instantiation. Anything else usurps the law and becomes
extra-legal, therefore unenforcable.